Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive145

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Craesius reported by User:Shirik (Result: 36h)[edit]

Page: Altiyan Childs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Craesius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [1]

  • 1st revert: [2]
  • 2nd revert: [3]
  • 3rd revert: [4]
  • 4th revert: [5]
  • 5th revert: [6]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion was limited to user's talk page both at en:User talk:Craesius and commons:User talk:Craesius (since the problem is occuring on both sites).

Comments:
I would handle this myself, but I consider myself presently involved and would prefer someone else take a look at this. The user has continued to restore usage of a copyvio image that has been deleted several times on Commons. Attempts to resolve disputes at the user's talk page have not gotten us anywhere, and it has become apparent the user is not willing to cooperate in this matter. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 22:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 36 hours Clear 3RR vio. I haven't looked at any other issue concerning this editor. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

User:79.97.171.208 and User:Halaqah reported by User:Lerdthenerd (Result: Both blocked)[edit]

Page: Belgian cuisine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 79.97.171.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) User being reported: Halaqah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [8]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13] Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [15]

Comments:

Lame edit war over point of view content--Lerdthenerd (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I saw that, but Gwen you warned them before for edit warring on related articles, so this is still an edit war. --Lerdthenerd (talk) 16:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)IP has only been blocked once for edit warring previously, nothing for vandalism--Lerdthenerd (talk) 17:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
You misunderstood why I posted this, the edit summary said the edit was vandalism, but the edit was straightforwardly not even close to vandalism. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry thought you were disagreeing with me, its seems we agree this is a edit war--Lerdthenerd (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry but have you looked at his/her activity across wikipedia or only this isolated instance. I think I had good reason to suspect a accused sockpuppet of vandalism. The behavior was that of a vandal.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 18:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • comment My interactions [16] [17] [18] [19] with User:79.97.171.208 have shown that they do not know when to go to the talk page. That they use a registered user name would be a step in a good direction. jmcw (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I am acting to prevent a disruptive editor who is flying through wiki reverting people. He does not use the talk page even when instructed to. Constantly saying "rmv POV" Now I am trying to protect the work of other serious editors here and the lerdthnerd is bring me (5 years of editing) in with this sockpuppet. I have no intrest in beligian food other than to prevent a repeated vandal. This is why people lose intrest in Wikipedia because you cannot constructive do any work. Without so much as looking at what is going on. If you see an ip address reverting work you can treat it as vandalism.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 17:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

You are stalking me and reverting all of my edits out of spite. Maybe the fact that someone with 5 years of editing would decide to systematically remove a new editor's constructive contributions out of personal dislike has some influence on people losing interest in wikipedia. And no, you can not treat my work as vandalism simply because I do not have a username79.97.171.208 (talk) 17:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I can treat it as vandalism if you dont use the talk page and blindly ignore other peoples contributions across many differnt wikipages that why it looks like vandalism. "rv POV" up and down wikipedia. What are people who work hard suppose to think? USE THE TALK PAGE, Be CIVIL. It is bigger than your or my opinion. Follow the rules NPOV has a meaning. Disucss has a meaning, calling me a freak is wrong.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 18:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

If you read the edits, you would see they aren't vandalism. It's not difficult to check these things before blindly reverting them over a grudge. If you don't want to be called a freak, don't stalk someone. 79.97.171.208 (talk) 18:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe your edits were not vandalism but your behavior made me think so. You cannot keep warring use the talk page and compromise. Look at what you did here Islam in Africa why would you do that if you didnt have issues with me? Now they say it is bickering. As oppose to balance and allow resolution they get pleasure from mocking us both. good work ip 79.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Bickering will get you two nowhere. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Bickering? I dont care about Belgian cusine to fight over it. Block me I am sure wiki has tonnes of good editors take a look at what has happened here Islam in Africa This is why I assumed it was vandalism. Now you take a serious user with someone with a history of bad work thats your choice. Question does the ip behave like a vandal --- YES. Does the Ip not use the talk pages - YES. Is it therefore unreasonable for me to assume these were the actions of a vandal?= YES. I have always wiki does more to put of serious people because when he is edit warring i cant do anything about it. Anyone can do what they want unless i dedicate less time to editing and more to talking here.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 18:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Wikistalker? I can't take any admin action on this because I've been in a content dispute with the IP at Fondue. However, edit warring, calling good faith edits vandalism and good faith editors wikistalkers is not on here. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
It is so easy for any person to see why I did what i did, How many times do ip vandals go and do sneaky vandalism. I admit that some of the edits were not vandalism. But at the time it looked that way. When you got limited time and research ref and then someone just wipes out your work it is vexing. from my position it looked like some randomly reverting established editors. We need protection from this now I am up for punishment for sincerely trying to protect other peoples work. Imagine that. How many pages have i created and cleaned up and this is my reward.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 18:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


The islam in africa edit admittedly looked odd. But that was due to a coding error causing the ref to show up oddly. If you don't believe he's a wikistalker, look at how his pattern of edits started to follow mine. (S)he was simply looking at what I have edited, and reverting it for no reason. 79.97.171.208 (talk) 19:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Both editors blocked 79.97.171.208 for a week because they were blocked for edit warring a couple of weeks ago, Halaqah for 24 hours for edit warring, but he hasn't been blocked for it for nearly 4 years. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

As I pointed out that I believed the previous block for 24 hours was unfit [20], I believe this is a bit harsh on the IP. Additionally, the IP is right, he's being followed. What's more, his accusation of "vandalism" was only after Halaqah did it first on the same article. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no comment about the durations of the respective blocks, but blocking both editors is definitely appropriate here. Both are more interested with calling the other a vandal and accusing one another of stalking and whatnot than actually discussing the issues that they disagreed about in the first page. As far as I can tell (my run-in with them was at Missing women of Asia; I haven't looked at their contributions elsewhere), neither has made any attempt to discuss article issues at the talkpage, they have just both come to me asking that the other editor be blocked for being terrible or whatnot. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Frank Q W reported by Ryulong (Result: declined)[edit]

Page: Pokémon Black and White (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Frank Q W (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 10:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

  1. 03:21, 24 November 2010 (edit summary: "Sounds more like PETA than Knights Templar")
  2. 03:29, 24 November 2010 (edit summary: "They still SOUND more like PETA than Knights Templar. A crazy animal activist is still a crazy animal activist, regardless if they look like knights or beggars.")
  3. 03:33, 24 November 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 398566416 by L Kensington (talk)")
  4. 03:46, 24 November 2010 (edit summary: "One could say their APPEARANCE is inspired by the Knights Templar, but "who seek to liberate Pokémon." sounds more like PETA than Knights Templar.")
  5. 05:56, 24 November 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 398568427 by Alansohn (talk)")

I told the user on his talk page after his third edit to the page to place his prefered content to cease reverting. Since then, he reverted, again, was warned by another user, reverted, again, and then I told him to stop, again. He was reverted on two occasions by myself, once by L Kensington (talk · contribs), once by Alansohn (talk · contribs), and once by JL 09 (talk · contribs).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined There have been no reverts since a final warning was issued. Since this is a new editor with no previous blocks or history of edit-warring, I do not feel that a block is justified at this time. Any further reverts on the same point should lead to a block, though. Looie496 (talk) 17:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Kevorkmail reported by User:HD86 (SECOND TIME) (Result: blocked 1 month)[edit]

This is the same complaint as this one. I don't have time to fill up the same form every time. This is a long dispute, and every time I ask for help a smart "administrator" gives me a lecture about what Wikipedia page I should read, but they never do anything to end the dispute and it continues. User:Kevorkmail does not want to talk about his edits. Perhaps this time someone will find a solutoin for THAT instead of telling me how I should behave?--HD86 (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Page:  Page-multi error: no page detected.
User being reported: [[User:|]] ([[User talk:|talk]] · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

  • 1st revert: [diff]
  • 2nd revert: [diff]
  • 3rd revert: [diff]
  • 4th revert: [diff]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Comments:

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 1 month Neither editor is sinless here (HD86 shows too much of an attitude of ownership), but the recent behavior of Kevorkmail has been so disruptive that I felt a lengthy block is the only reasonable response. The edit-warring that led to this report is only one of several factors motivating the block. Looie496 (talk) 17:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Fitnfun02 reported by Elp gr (Result: Indef)[edit]

Page: Meligalas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fitnfun02 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [21]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [27] and [28]

Comments:

The user keeps editing this page in an attempt to promote a historical revisionism favoring the Security Battalions; he tries to conceal their (well-documented historically) Nazi collaborationist nature, present them as "innocent right-wingers" that were only trying to stop the communists from assuming power as the Nazis were leaving Greece and promote a Blood Libel against the Greek Resistance by falsely (there is no reliable historical source that supports his claims; in fact, only Greek neo-nazi bloggers agree with him) claiming that children were among those executed in Meligalas. Furthermore, the source cited at the end of the article is in stark contrast with the entirety of his claims. Elp gr (talk) 19:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked Indefinitely blocked. Editor has done nothing but push POV. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I will keep an eye on the articles that have received Fitnfun02's treatment, in case he returns. Elp gr (talk) 00:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Empirical9 and User:Stewaj7 reported by User:Fladrif (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: Michael Welner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Empirical9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and Stewaj7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [37] [38]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [39][40][41]

Comments:

Came to this article after a question came up at WP:RSN. Tag-team edit warring by two SPA's appear to be pushing POV to make this BLP a puff piece, inserting unsourced positive material, deleting sourced criticism. In this case, 6 reverts in a single day for one editor, two more reverts in the same 24-hour period by the other. Fladrif (talk) 00:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale Sorry. I can't do much. The edit war is almost a day old, so a block now would be punitive unless there's evidence of continued edit warring within the last few hours. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
That's absurd. Six reverts in less than 24 hours from one tag team SPA, two more from the other SPA, all less than 24 hours ago, and you think that's "stale"? This was reported timely. No one acted on it for 20 hours for reasons I cannot fathom. A block would not be "punative" it would be preventative. And it would certainly be timely. Fladrif (talk) 23:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
And the reversions continue: [42] and so it is most definitely ongoing. Fladrif (talk) 04:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Result - Protected two weeks. I suggest using this time to get a fuller discussion of the 'beautification' issues. If criticism is being kept out of the article by fans of this doctor, it may be possible to document that at the WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 04:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Chelo61 reported by User:Tbhotch (Result: Declined)[edit]

Page: Michael (album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Chelo61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: link permitted

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chelo61&diff=398762022&oldid=398706437 link] (he later copied the same to my talkpage).

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff

Comments:
Chelo has been blocked 4 times for edit-warring and disruptive editing. Even though a past edit-war started a topic on the talkpage if this album is or not a studio or compilation (or both), recently he has started to edit war within the article. I recommended him to self revert him to avoid a report to ANI or AN3, but, he instead continued doing other things, including to WP:OWN (see last comment) on the page Carita Bonita, which fails WP:NSONG. This user has violated the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT rule, over and over again, in the article and even in the talkpage, and seems like he won't stop. Happy Thanksgiving TbhotchTalk C. 06:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Not blocked No discussion at any talk page, and you are behaving just as poorly as the other editor. I'm leaving a warning for both of you; start a discussion at the talk page, if either of you reverts again you may be blocked. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
But a discussion is currently ongoing on the talkpage, did you check something? This is ridiculous, I'll take it to ANI Happy Thanksgiving TbhotchTalk C. 06:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I see no discussion of this issue at the article talkpage, and you didn't link to one. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Damn looks like my block conflicted with this decline (although I suspect I got in first). There was a warning at 05:37[43] followed by a 3RR breach at 05:43. Warnings aside, the user has a history of edit-warring. I agree Tbhotch might have done things better, but he didn't cross the bright line; Chelo did. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
    • 3 reverts is still 3 reverts, with no attempt at discussion and with confrontational edit summaries calling someone a vandal during a content dispute and smug messages saying you will be blocked now. Looks like a clear case of gaming the system from me. An editor shouldn't think he's immune from reproach just because he didn't hit 4 reverts; as an administrator working at AN3 ought to know, 3RR is not an entitlement, and someone can still be blocked without hitting 4 reverts. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
      I don't think Tbhotch has done anything blockable. Handling a situation badly is different to edit-warring: 3RR isn't an entitlement but I don't see any cause to block on the basis of gaming. That being said, I've lifted Chelo's block in deference to your view (and your decision that conflicted with my block) that they should be treated evenly. I think that is a fair call and if two admins have reached different decisions simultaneously it is appropriate to defer to the decision that involved the less drastic action.--Mkativerata (talk) 06:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Here (linked above) are all our discussion regardless if Michael is a studio album or not. Chelo has only posted some reliable (some unreliable) sources which call it a studio album and most of them call it new. According to him "albums called 'new albums' are usually refered as studio albums". Simone Jackson has proved with much more reliable sources (2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 at Michael (album)) and others at talkpage calling it "compilation". Even he had been told on the talkpage to get more sources of the "studio" concept, he got unreliable sources, as well Sony sources, calling it "studio", Sony could call it soundtrack (and we are not tagging it as soundtrack) and even if Sony called it compilation he has stated (or his comments intended to say it) that this is a studio album becuase all songs are "new" and "unreleased". I told him to read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT (which I do not think he read) and accept that after all it is a compilation of unreleased tracks (see compilation album for further information), he started to edit war (links above). After I warned him, he continued. It's not possible that after 4 blocks for the same and after a warning, the user "needs to be carried to a disruptive resolution", even if I'd tried to talk with him, I'm pretty sure that he would continued reverting me, see Carita Bonita (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for why I say this. Happy Thanksgiving TbhotchTalk C. 06:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I just now found that link; in the future, please format your AN3 reports properly and don't hide the relevant links in piped text. In any case, what I said yesterday is still true: neither one of you had consensus either way for your edits, you were reverting just as much as he was, and you hadn't made any more attempt to take the discussion to the talk page that time (the only other discussion was weeks before). rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Rarevogel / User:84.83.145.241 reported by User:Jayjg (Result: Semiprotected)[edit]

Page: Berber people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rarevogel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) / 84.83.145.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Comments:
This is essentially a repeat of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive143#User:Rarevogel / User:84.83.145.241 reported by User:Jayjg (Result: 24 hours). In the previous case, User:Rarevogel / User:84.83.145.241 was edit-warring in a specific set of infobox images over a long period of time, while refusing to discuss the issue on the article's talk page, despite multiple entreaties to do so. After being blocked for this, he avoided the article for a while, but has just come back and reverted the article yet again, and again without a comment on the Talk: page discussion, or even an edit summary. Note: if action is taken, please take it on both the ip and userid; in the past, by judiciously logging out, he's managed to avoid getting blocks logged against his account. Jayjg (talk) 02:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Result - Article semiprotected. If from this point on we observe that a named account such as Rarevogel continues to revert the pictures, I suggest a lengthy block. EdJohnston (talk) 03:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

User:70.19.144.66 reported by User:Gavia immer (Result:24 hours)[edit]

Page: George W. Bush military service controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 70.19.144.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [44]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [50]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None, but see [51] on the IP's talk page

Comments:

The IP was reverted by 3 different editors; this is a straightforward case of Not Getting It. Gavia immer (talk) 03:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

He seems to have eased off the revert button for a while after his last warning 27 minutes ago (although it took a lot of warnings to get there) and perhaps even trying to engage.[52] Let's give engagement a shot first: all I'm seeing from the other side of the dispute (apart from the reporter) is rollbacking and warnings. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Ok that failed. After the warning, which must be presumed to have been read, a further revert followed: [53]. Blocked for 24 hours. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

User:GQperfekt10 reported by User:Ted87 (Result: 48h)[edit]

Page: Genovese crime family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GQperfekt10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: 13:59, November 5, 2010

Oldest revisions

Newest revisions


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [54]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: He deleted warnings from his talk page put there by me and another user

Comments:

He keeps adding material about a supposed mobster. This may violate the rules on biographies of a living person since no reliable sources were used. Multiple users have reverted his edits for a couple weeks, but he still keeps on putting back the info. --Ted87 (talk) 03:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Result - 48 hours for adding unsourced negative information to a BLP. User was not warned for 3RR before his last edit. EdJohnston (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

IP user reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: Semiprotected)[edit]

Page: Ancient Macedonians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 173.209.149.42 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

and later IPs: 174.117.97.72 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 129.100.179.190 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)


Previous version reverted to: 8 November

  1. 25 Nov, 08:14
  2. 25 Nov, 09:12
  3. 25 Nov, 10:05
  4. 25 Nov, 10:40
  5. 25 Nov, 22:06
  6. 25 Nov, 22:18
  7. 25 Nov, 03:31
  8. 25 Nov, 03:41

Warning given: [55].

Comments:
Reverting on one of the most long-standing, lamest points of ideological contention in the "Macedonia" topic area, against multiple other users. Also edit-warring on other related articles (List of ancient Macedonians, Macedonians (ethnic group). User is aware of extensive prior discussion and the fact that his edits go against long-standing consensus. This [56] posting shows this is not a naive newcomer, but very likely an experienced agenda editor with prior experience in the area, quite possibly evading an existing sanction (under WP:ARBMAC or WP:ARBMAC2). Attempted a trolling "false-flag" move on talk page by pretending he was a person from a different national background, proposing a POV highly uncharacteristic of editors of any nationality except his own [57]. Fut.Perf. 07:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


I still am wondering why reliable sources have been removed from the page stating the the Ancient Macedonians are greek. This is a long-standing wide consensus by scholars in Academia. existing discussion on this topic was clearly not through enough, did not have all the facts, or was over run by POV agenda driven users on the opposite side.

Various reliable sources were given, yet they were silently removed by Fut. Perf., along with ZjarriRrethues, Local hero, and others, who all seem to have some sort of anti-greek or anti-truth agenda. None of them engaged in discussion so they effectively team up to distribute an edit war without discussion.

Adding sources that are reliable, cannot be be agenda driven, it is simply the fact. I provided four sources, both ancient and modern, stating that the Ancient Macedonians were a greek people. This is a long-standing wide consensus by scholars in Academia. If a handful of editors on wikipedia have a POV agenda to suppress this, then of course there is no way that the public will reading credible information when they reach the page.

The spirit of wikipedia is to publish credible sources of information for the public to consume.

Further, I suggest you consider reporting edit-warring against one IP at a time, rather then clumping me in with others, who while I may agree with them, are not the same user.

Future Pref has made zero effort to explain on discussion page why he believes reliable sources stating the ancient macedonians were of a greek ethnos are either, not reliable, or not relevant to the article. I am more then willing to hear his side of the story. Perhaps he has a compelling argument that refutes 2500 years of historical sources, and consensus among over 300 historians at leading learning institutions (also available on discussion page). I have read the discussion page on this, and those refuting traditional consensus have not produced much, if any sources to back their claims. I don't want to see false information on a wikipedia page. --174.117.97.72 (talk) 08:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

---

As noted on the template when referring a user for 'edit warring' . --" You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too "--

I have noted with edits that credible sources to back up claims are on discussion page. Fut. Perf. made zero effort to have any discussion, or to link exactly where this 'discussion' already occurred. He has not acted in good faith, and has collaborated with other POV editors to remove credible, reliable sources from the article, with zero explanation. They have simply had a 'discussion' between themselves with a group of accounts all created and collaborated for POV purposes, so that they can automatically just say 'this has been discussed'. Unfortunately, wikipedia is a growing and living organism. Because a discussion occurred in the past, does not mean that it is set in stone. If the discussion was not through, and did not address new issues that have been brought up since then, it must continue. Otherwise any wikipedia article could be hijacked by a small group of POV users who have a 'discussion' between themselves and set that in stone.

I think it is very wrong to remove credible, reliable sources in any scenario.--174.117.97.72 (talk) 08:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Result - Semiprotected one month. Multiple IPs appear out of nowhere to start revert warring (in succession) on an article which has been the subject of past disputes, and is subject to WP:ARBMAC. Altogether, they make eight reverts in 24 hours. The IPs are adding material to the article which expresses a nationalist point of view in Wikipedia's voice. All the IPs geolocate to Toronto or Western Ontario, and are presumably the same person. EdJohnston (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Jrkso reported by User:JCAla (Result: Malformed)[edit]

Disruptive use of the wikipedia notification boards by Jrkso and edit wars because of his political agenda Many editors have told User:Jrkso to stop his frequent edit wars on Afghanistan-related issues.[58][59][60][61][62][63] He repeatedly makes up false "facts" i. e. claiming (regarding the name of the anti-Taliban organization) that "the name "United Front" was created in 2007"[64][65] although it was the name they had given themselves from the beginning.[66] Jrkso's false "facts" create the situation that normal editors are pulled into edit wars if they want to restore correct information. Jrkso ignores reliable sources (plus the consensus reached by editors that the sources used are indeed reliable sources [67][68]) and he ignores consensus reached by editors [69][70] regarding the removing of the tags he added to the sections. He keeps reinserting them.[71][72][73][74]

User:Jrkso has opened five or more topics on the wikipedia notification boards all for the same issue. If people on those boards do not react or do not agree with his assessment see 19 November 2010 he simply opens another topic on another board.

21 September 2010

27 September 2010

22 October 2010

19 November 2010

25 November 2010

Is there any possibility for someone to tell Jrkso to stop bothering every existing wikipedia board with always the same stuff and to stop his politically motivated edit wars on Afghanistan-related issues (especially in the main Afghanistan article)? JCAla (talk) 26 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. It's unclear exactly what you're reporting. If you need to report an edit war or 3RR violation, please follow the instructions and try again. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Thethirstyscholar and User:Ctjf83 reported by User:Addihockey10 (Result: Declined)[edit]

Page: Same-sex marriage in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Thethirstyscholar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Ctjf83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] [75]

  • 1st revert: [diff]

[76]

  • 2nd revert: [diff]

[77]

  • 3rd revert: [diff]

[78]

  • 4th revert: [diff]

[79]

  • 5th revert: [diff]

[80]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

[81]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Comments:

Uh, how can you report 2 people in the same report. 2 of my edits were reverts to that user, and 1 was an unsourced revert...badfaith report of me. CTJF83 chat 19:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
And the unsourced revert I did has nothing to do with the other 2, and never actually violated 3RR CTJF83 chat 19:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined I'm going to decline for now since Thethirstyscholar seems to be attempting to engage in meaningful discussion. I'm keeping an eye on it. For the record, neither part has crossed the bright line. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Users Nascarking and 161.76.98.239 reported by User:Barts1a (Result: Both blocked)[edit]

Page: Hell in a Cell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Nascarking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and 161.76.98.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hell_in_a_Cell&oldid=399044821

  • 1st revert: diff
  • 2nd revert: diff
  • 3rd revert: diff
  • 4th revert (By this point I had become aware of this edit war): diff


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nascarking&diff=prev&oldid=399043816 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:161.76.98.239&diff=prev&oldid=399043796

Comments:

User:69.19.14.26 reported by Theornamentalist (talk) (Result:no action)[edit]

Page: The Video Game Critic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 69.19.14.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), 66.82.162.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), 98.27.220.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 02:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

  1. 02:28, 27 November 2010 (edit summary: "")
  2. 02:28, 26 November 2010 (edit summary: "")


I do not wish to engage in an edit war, and this user seems to feel the need to stress this bit of information. I also would like to remove this information.—Theornamentalist (talk) 02:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

  • At least as worded right now, this edit is really just vandalism, so reverting it would be exempt from edit warring policies. There's no way in hell we can accept something written that way. This situation isn't really suitable for an edit warring block with two reverts; if it continues, though, it might be worth blocking for vandalism. For that, you can use this page, or you can request semi-protection here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Digiphi User:Doc Tropics reported by User:Ibn kathir (Result: No vio)[edit]

Page: Criticism of Muhammad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Digiphi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Doc Tropics (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

you will have to excuse me i don't know how to report specific reverts, i have linked to the section in question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Muhammad#Aisha

the dispute is over the accuracy of the primary sources [ women being forced into marriage ] and the accusation of pedophilia in spite of its scientific definition, i removed these and they where reverted by two users, one i think is an editor.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Criticism_of_Muhammad Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]


i have attempted dialogue on the talk page proven my case with out any counter argument by anyone and these two users have simply reverted the page back stating my case wasn't proven based on nothing else but their preferences in spite of the dictionary meaning of the word in question:


i have proven my case regarding the issue of women being forced into marriage from the sources the article itself quotes and misinterprets as well as shariah law which is essentially how Muslims understand their own religion, but this still wasn't acceptable to them, if Muslims themselves reject this in their own laws what right is their for someone who isn't a qualified lawyer or judge and doesn't understand the principles of Islamic jurisprudence to come along and interpret the law how ever they wish and then accuse them of something they have rejected.

Ibn kathir (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

what about reverts with no discussion at all, i have reverted the page back and will wait to see if they again change it.

Ibn kathir (talk) 05:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The page has been reverted now 3 times in 24 hours, i will refile the complaint if this attempt is considered closed as i don't know if it will be looked at again.

Ibn kathir (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Almatinets reported by User:HXL49 (Result: 24h)[edit]

Page: Cold War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Almatinets (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [82]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [88]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not needed. see my explanation below.

Comments:

Consistently re-inserting YT links on the page. This constitutes spam so my and Mr. Berty's reversions do not count as edit warring. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 14:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

User:99.151.57.125 reported by User:LiteralKa (Result: Semiprotected)[edit]

Page: Imageboard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 99.151.57.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

I am currently in an edit war with this user, who is repeatedly adding blatant advertising of non notable imageboard softwares and the like. LiteralKa (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: [89]

Comments:

  • Result - Semiprotected three weeks. Long-term edit warring (four days) to insert mention of an imageboard whose importance is not demonstrated by reliable sources. The IP does nothing but add their material to this one article, and does not discuss on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 01:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Rafaelluik reported by User:Schapel (Result: 72h each)[edit]

Page: Mozilla (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rafaelluik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [93]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [98]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I tried to do this on the user's talk page.

Comments:

I've tried to resolve the issue on the user's talk page, but he's bound and determined to continue an edit war until I can present "proof" that the information he's deleting is factual. I have presented proof, but as I suspected, the user considers the proof insufficient. It looks to me that this user is trying to promote the Opera browser on Wikipedia and is retaliating against or threatening retaliation against those who stand in his way. As examples, I found that the user moved Opera browsers to the top of the Acid2 compliant browsers list [99] and made the threat "if these images be removed again I will remove Firefox from every page I find it on Wikipedia." in a comment [100]. I should add that the edit war started after I undid [101] an edit of Rafaelluik's about Opera in the Mozilla article. Rafaelluik's deletion followed immediately afterwards with a similar comment as mine with a smiley at the end indicating a lack of seriousness. It's looking to me that he's vandalizing the article in retaliation.

Well, In my point of view Schapel has used rollback inappropriately, even though this is a one-off, he's applied this edit several times within the past week or two. In-fact it's what I call a false positive on reverting page-blanking. Minimac (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Gods10rules, User:KeptSouth, User:Kelly, and User:Johnuniq reported by User:184.59.23.225 (Result: Protected)[edit]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Page: Bristol Palin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [102]

Comments:
There appears to a a clique of users that will revert-on-site any content that is remotely unflattering to Bristol Palin or her sister, no matter how well or broadly cited. They engage in wildly WP:TENDENTIOUS talk page tactics while continuing their auto-revert of cited content using the justification that either "consensus was to exclude" (when no such consensus was reached), or "consensus hasn't been reached for inclusion". So far, Kelly (talk · contribs) has brought this issue up for discussion at Talk:Bristol Palin, WP:BLPN#Willow Palin, WP:BLPN#No Consensus, and WP:ANI#Bristol Palin-- and she accuses people of "forking the discussion" if they're not communicating in her chosen forum of the moment (c.f. my talk page).

184.59.23.225 (talk) 09:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Note - This "report" is ludicrously "malformed". Forum-shopping... Doc talk 10:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Note - You're wrong. This is the most appropriate forum for what is demonstrably a long-term edit war. 184.59.23.225 (talk) 10:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Response Essentially, IP editor 184 is complaining about the removal of certain quotations. [118] These quotes are contentious, and completely unsourced. The only two references given for the quotes, [119] and later [120] do not contain the quotes. Unsourced contentious material in a BLP must be immediately removed per one of the strongest Wikipedia policies there is. Whether Willow should be mentioned was discussed extensively on the BLP noticeboards and on the talk pages, with the consensus being - keep her name out. Furthermore, most of the diffs given by IP 184 actually show the reverse of what he is claiming they show. I agree with Doc that posting this ANI edit warring complaint is forum shopping, but it goes beyond that. It is simply baseless, contrary to the actual facts, and therefore, I cannot see how this complaint is made in good faith. KeptSouth (talk) 12:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)KeptSouth (talk) 12:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Addendum to my response - The reporter, IP editor 184, has shown only one revert by me, in a one day span - that is hardly a 3RR long term edit war.(the so-called 9th revert above) Furthermore, the one revert I did does not even count toward the three revert rule, because it removed unsourced contentious material that violated BLP policy. We are not even talking about poorly sourced material. We are talking unsourced. Finally the IP editor complains that I added a word to my own edit, characterizing my action as "altering the text" (the so called 10th revert) I did add a word "offensive", and it comes straight from the source "Bristol engaged in a stream of offensive comments..." As I said in my edit summary, I felt the quote marks around the word "offensive" were necessary to convey the fact that was the source's characterization, and not simply my own POV. It is not edit warring to add to my own edit and to add quote marks. IP user 184 calls this introducing "scare quotes" ([121]} and not only is this ANI the first time he has discussed or objected to the quote marks, but he also did not respond to the reason I gave for adding them. - KeptSouth (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment on this Palin stuff[edit]

Sorry about the spreading wildfire. Started with Talk:Bristol Palin#Willow mentioned, from there to WP:BLPN#Willow Palin, and then WP:ANI#Sarah Palin community article probation. Puppy usually stays on top of the flames and stomps on them before they turn into time-wasting infernos, but she seems to be away. Could someone else please step up? Kelly hi! 10:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

That's the defense of one of the accused parties... now just to wait for the other 3... Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 11:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I cannot imagine why Kelly is apologizing for the actions of an anonymous IP user who has chosen to spread a non-dispute to yet another forum. Maybe Kelly is just overly polite -but I think that at the very least, Kelly should respond to the accusation. KeptSouth (talk) 12:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected Obviously an edit war that needs to be stopped, but I don't think anybody has done anything unambiguously blockable and I don;t want to give the impression of singling out particular editors. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I just saw this after I composed my answer above, and I respectfully disagree. There is not obviously an edit war. There is obviously an IP editor who has never contributed to the article and who shouldn't even have standing to complain at this level. But, obviously he is very experienced in creating certain appearances. There is basically only one current editor opposing all others, and the behavior pattern of that editor often, but not always is to add trivial and unsupported very negative information to a BLP. There is still some of that in the article, and your protection effectively will leave it that way. But that is the way it goes. Administrators have to make decisions on these things, and if someone such as the IP editor who began this completely spurious ANI, knows how to muddy the waters enough, they get their way.KeptSouth (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Excuse me? If you really think that someone "who has never contributed to the article" "shouldn't have standing to complain," you might as well pack your bags and go home, because you missed the point of WIkipedia. Besides which, I have contributed to the article, in the form of {{edit semi-protected}} requests on the talk page. It's rather difficult for an IP editor to make direct contributions to semi-protected articles. 184.59.23.225 (talk) 21:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

User:112.205.7.91 reported by User:MFIreland (Result: 2 weeks)[edit]

Page: Éamon de Valera (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 112.205.7.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: 21:48, 26 November 2010


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:112.205.7.91 (warning removed by user)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Éamon de Valera

Comments:

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks Length of block due to IP's 2 previous and very recent blocks for edit warring. MFIreland, only because the IP was clearly the provocateur were they blocked and you not. Please watch your reverts more carefully in future. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

User:94.66.165.113 reported by Grk1011/Stephen (talk) (Result: Declined)[edit]

Page: Antidoto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 94.66.165.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 20:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

  1. Original removal of content: [122]
  2. 19:30, 28 November 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 399344184 by Greekboy (talk) ( they are known for you, provide a source)")
  3. 19:47, 28 November 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 399374496 by Grk1011 (talk) (you don't provide again any link)")
  4. 19:49, 28 November 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 399374852 by Grk1011 (talk) (that's not a point, someone want to see true sources not to by the album)")
  • Diff of warning: here. Page was then blanked by user [123]

Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined They haven't reverted since you warned them and there's no violation of the bright line rule, so I'm declining for now. Come back if they continue to revert. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)